Is it time to censor political speech?
Fri Oct 13, 2006 at 10:11:57 PM PDT
I just watched five (5!) campaign ads in a row on television - same station, one after another. And we still have more than three weeks to go. Oh god. None of these ads provides any substance that will help the average citizen understand where the respective candidate stands on a single issue. If "positive," the ads are mushy and meaningless. But most are negative attack ads; and all of them stretch or at least blur the truth. Fear is the dominant selling point - the "bad guy" is always portrayed in grainy, black-and-white, slow motion. Booo!
We prohibit cigarette advertising from the airwaves because smoking is bad for one's health. I wonder if it's time to think seriously about restricting political advertising from television and radio - because what we have now is equally unhealthy for democracy.
I recall having this conversation about fifteen years ago with a sociologist some of you may know - Robert Bellah, coauthor of the best-selling
Habits of the Heart in the mid-80s. In the team's next book,
The Good Society, they propose removing political ads from the airwaves. I was a grad student at the time and interviewed Bellah on this subject. Being a hardcore civil libertarian, I took the First Amendment, ACLU position - no restrictions on speech, no matter how abhorrent.
I'm having a hard time holding onto that view, and my grip gets weaker every time an election season rolls around. I don't know what the percentages are (I'm sure someone here knows), but I would imagine something like 70 to 90 percent of an average campaign's budget is needed for television advertising. And we know what many elected officials have to do to raise that kind of money: suck corporate America's teat, take it up the ass from special interests, and prostitute yourself, and your values, in ways my filthy little mind can't even think of. Abramoff. Enron. Chevron. NRA.
Either you enter the race a millionaire, or you raise $5,000 or $10,000 a day to have a shot at a senate seat. And once elected, incumbents find it much easier to raise that dough and, not surprisingly, they are re-elected at an excessive rate. We complain about why "better people" with ideas don't enter politics. Duh. So the nation talks and talks and talks about "campaign reform," and we do our fair share of it at DKos. But most of these discussions focus on monitoring "income flow," rather than addressing the main reason candidates need that income - television. So politicians pass something like McCain-Feingold, pat themselves on their backs, and blabber on about how they're "getting money out of politics." Before the next election corporations and other money changers have figured a way around, through, or under the laws. And nothing's changed.
I'd like to see candidates engage in ideas, instead of spending their time (which is really our time) raising bucks so their consultants can create nasty ads that wallow in lies and mud. (Yes, I know Lincoln-Douglas wasn't a rhetorical carnival - beside the point.) The airwaves are supposedly ours, so let's require stations to host regular debates, C-SPAN style. To get most of their message across, candidates would have to go out more and actually talk with constituents, or create written pamphlets or websites that voters can read and think about - where words and logic matter (instead of the pretty balloons and scary bogeymen we get now).
I suspect some readers here are consultants and won't like this proposition, and of course the Big Name lobbyists, corporations, and the media (those who run the system now) would scream loudest. Others here are free speech advocates who hate the current system too, but don't want to travel down this slippery slope. So here's a proposal: 1) Restrict television and radio advertising to publicly-financed commercials, where everyone has the same amount to play with; 2) require television and radio stations to devote a generous number of primetime hours to debates, and include more than the two parties in these debates; 3) candidates can spend whatever the hell they want on newspaper ads, mailings, website, speaking engagements, and other written and public communications.
I'm willing to at least try this (or a verison of it) for two or three election cycles. It wouldn't be perfect but here's what I hope to see: candidates talk about issues and ideas, it's not almost always the candidate who raises the most money who wins (usually the incumbent), more people are encouraged to enter the political process, but, most of all, the average cost of a Senate race goes from $12 million to 1/10 that - so officials can focus on their constituents, not their benefactors. If that happens, then I guess that's a compromise I'm willing to make. Sure, there are tons of details to work out (like the FCC), but would you even entertain the idea, if only on a temporary basis? I'm a free speech advocate, so talk me out of this. I don't see the current system reforming itself, until we address the root cause.
Permalink | 27 comments